09-25-2016, 04:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-25-2016, 04:55 PM by tampadave.
Edit Reason: more oppies.
)
Hey Mark, "( at the risk of being pedantic )" too late!!! ROFL!
:-)
Quack (duck, rhymes with...truck) Unix/AT&T. Presitge? Quack quack. No such thing. I was supporing OS/2, tcp/ip and cm/2 for IBM (and their internal customers) back when OS/2 and CM/2 were still viable products. tcp/ip was newly exposed to the general public, no longer the private domain of NSF net, DARPA, dot mils and dot edus. I took that job because I believed that IBM was going to actually stay with OS/2. Trouble is, IBM was so large, and still is, that (nearly) any twenty products of theirs could fail, and it would not matter.
They made a financial decisions to kill OS/2, even though technically it was a very very solid product. I do not respect corporate prerogatives towards technology. I despise them, in large part, because they engineer incompetence into their designs, to screw money out of their customers. Always have. My understanding of evil, is willful incompetence. I mean come ON! How is it that after all these years, M$ still needs anti-virus software? People think that is normal, and just keep paying because they do not know any better. And they keep selling it. M$ wanted a full license for each cpu core at one point. And many of these software businesses are trying to move to a marginal cost distribution, cause they figured out that fixed cost revenue reduces to zero in the long run. (duh??) M$, adobe, others too I suppose.
I choose to be good, not evil. I do not willingly participate in evil. It is why I have my own company, so that I have a place I can work without violating my sincerities.
As for the pedantic nit pickeries of blah blah blah... I am GNU/FSF/Linux all the way. awk/gawk? No. awk is gawk so far as I am concerned, because: awk --version GNU Awk 4.0.1, quack everything else. Vernacularly speaking. Pedantic nit pickeries are embarrassing if serious, funny if in rhetoric exaggeration.
Fact is, I'd prefer not support at all, M$ questions, cause there is no good reason to, except for the fact that there are good people who do not yet know any better. For many of them, we'll be able to "free them from the matrix" of bad technology by introducing them to good technology. In this regard, I gladly value the people I might help, over my own disgust of those bad things they speak of. It would be sooo easy for me to be a zealot, but I choose instead, to be helpful. As best I can.
Responsibility is the (first) basis of liberty. We are free to choose what we use, to do what we have chosen to do. In OUR world, we are free and open to decide that for ourselves, cause we ARE the ones doing the work. Quack all policies and practices to the contrary. Unix, OSX, M$ and their subsequent derivatives. No thank you. Those people tell me what I can and cannot do, and how I can and cannot do them. But for a price, those rules change. No thank you.
Compliance. Huh. There are no standards in my free and open world, except for GNU/FSF/Linux, et. al.. Unix is non-compliant. M$ is non-compliant. In many ways, OSX is non-compliant. Quack'em all. I will not use their kit, so I neither need nor want it. Mind you, M$ is the best gaming distribution, and very good for that. I'm OK with that. OSX is so close to GNU/Linux, that I prefer it over M$ when I am supporting a client, and Unix, well... I've never been able to afford them, pre-MS-DOS or now. And it is not just about the money, but sincere competence.
To be one thing is to be nothing else. I choose to be free and open, which means I am nothing else. pine64 is free and open (except for quacking mali kit, for now), and nothing else. kernel.org is free and open, and nothing else. And so forth.
Finally, regarding distributions. None of those are really different, other than the package and version management systems employed by those distributions. At our build level use, we are in a GNU/Linux bash environment. So if you were to label these "distributions" any thing, I'd label them bash distributions, cause that is what they are, regarding our purposes. bash tools. The bash tool chain(s). "Build Environments" is probably the best term. It's got my nomination. Is there a second?
Now, WHAT we are building, THAT is more in line with distributions (rather than build environments), so long as we are building end user, workstation (read that window managed) applications. Like a desktop, or even something like kodi, or retropi. Those are distributions, because they have working end user applications, and are pretty much finished products.
So how does all of that relate to this topic? Simple. Our build environments need to provide the tools most useful to the users who are building pine64 products. What we need is a consequence of what we are doing with the technology. Legacy has nothing to do with the merit of a tool, only the merit of the tool to do the work that we are doing matters. That's the relevance. And let's not forget that many of our participants are new to this stuff, and we get to bring them in.
David
:-)
Quack (duck, rhymes with...truck) Unix/AT&T. Presitge? Quack quack. No such thing. I was supporing OS/2, tcp/ip and cm/2 for IBM (and their internal customers) back when OS/2 and CM/2 were still viable products. tcp/ip was newly exposed to the general public, no longer the private domain of NSF net, DARPA, dot mils and dot edus. I took that job because I believed that IBM was going to actually stay with OS/2. Trouble is, IBM was so large, and still is, that (nearly) any twenty products of theirs could fail, and it would not matter.
They made a financial decisions to kill OS/2, even though technically it was a very very solid product. I do not respect corporate prerogatives towards technology. I despise them, in large part, because they engineer incompetence into their designs, to screw money out of their customers. Always have. My understanding of evil, is willful incompetence. I mean come ON! How is it that after all these years, M$ still needs anti-virus software? People think that is normal, and just keep paying because they do not know any better. And they keep selling it. M$ wanted a full license for each cpu core at one point. And many of these software businesses are trying to move to a marginal cost distribution, cause they figured out that fixed cost revenue reduces to zero in the long run. (duh??) M$, adobe, others too I suppose.
I choose to be good, not evil. I do not willingly participate in evil. It is why I have my own company, so that I have a place I can work without violating my sincerities.
As for the pedantic nit pickeries of blah blah blah... I am GNU/FSF/Linux all the way. awk/gawk? No. awk is gawk so far as I am concerned, because: awk --version GNU Awk 4.0.1, quack everything else. Vernacularly speaking. Pedantic nit pickeries are embarrassing if serious, funny if in rhetoric exaggeration.
Fact is, I'd prefer not support at all, M$ questions, cause there is no good reason to, except for the fact that there are good people who do not yet know any better. For many of them, we'll be able to "free them from the matrix" of bad technology by introducing them to good technology. In this regard, I gladly value the people I might help, over my own disgust of those bad things they speak of. It would be sooo easy for me to be a zealot, but I choose instead, to be helpful. As best I can.
Responsibility is the (first) basis of liberty. We are free to choose what we use, to do what we have chosen to do. In OUR world, we are free and open to decide that for ourselves, cause we ARE the ones doing the work. Quack all policies and practices to the contrary. Unix, OSX, M$ and their subsequent derivatives. No thank you. Those people tell me what I can and cannot do, and how I can and cannot do them. But for a price, those rules change. No thank you.
Compliance. Huh. There are no standards in my free and open world, except for GNU/FSF/Linux, et. al.. Unix is non-compliant. M$ is non-compliant. In many ways, OSX is non-compliant. Quack'em all. I will not use their kit, so I neither need nor want it. Mind you, M$ is the best gaming distribution, and very good for that. I'm OK with that. OSX is so close to GNU/Linux, that I prefer it over M$ when I am supporting a client, and Unix, well... I've never been able to afford them, pre-MS-DOS or now. And it is not just about the money, but sincere competence.
To be one thing is to be nothing else. I choose to be free and open, which means I am nothing else. pine64 is free and open (except for quacking mali kit, for now), and nothing else. kernel.org is free and open, and nothing else. And so forth.
Finally, regarding distributions. None of those are really different, other than the package and version management systems employed by those distributions. At our build level use, we are in a GNU/Linux bash environment. So if you were to label these "distributions" any thing, I'd label them bash distributions, cause that is what they are, regarding our purposes. bash tools. The bash tool chain(s). "Build Environments" is probably the best term. It's got my nomination. Is there a second?
Now, WHAT we are building, THAT is more in line with distributions (rather than build environments), so long as we are building end user, workstation (read that window managed) applications. Like a desktop, or even something like kodi, or retropi. Those are distributions, because they have working end user applications, and are pretty much finished products.
So how does all of that relate to this topic? Simple. Our build environments need to provide the tools most useful to the users who are building pine64 products. What we need is a consequence of what we are doing with the technology. Legacy has nothing to do with the merit of a tool, only the merit of the tool to do the work that we are doing matters. That's the relevance. And let's not forget that many of our participants are new to this stuff, and we get to bring them in.
David
David, the lip smacking pirate hedgehog. "SHIVER me timbers!"